The court emphasized the need for extreme caution in dealing with applications for police protection and clarified that such orders should not be exploited for any purpose other than intended by the court. It also highlighted that while managements may seek assistance from the court for protection, such orders should not be used by the police to prejudicially affect the lawful agitation by the workmen.

1. The petitioner is the President of the Kerala State Committee of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and the President of the Azhicode Power-loom Mills Workers' Union, Azhicode. The question raised in this petition concerns the conduct of the police in regard to satyagraha and other forms of agitation resorted to by the workmen of Ravikrishna Mills and Usha Textiles, both at Azhicode, to press, what according to them are, their legitimate demands. The petitioner complains of certain mass retrenchments of workmen which, according to him, was malafide and unjustified. It is said that the District Labour Officer called a conciliation conference on 15 21974 but the management refused to attend it. The District Labour Officer called a conference a second time and then too the management is said to have refused to attend the conference. It is said that in these circumstances the Union was compelled to call for a strike on 26 21974. It is the petitioner's complaint that as a revenge against the strike the management declared lock-out of the factories from 27-2-1974.

2. The complaint in the petition is that the workers who have a right to perform satyagraha are not allowed to do so and are effectively obstructed by being asked to remain 200 yards away from the gate and not go anywhere near the premises of the factories for performing satyagraha or holding demonstrations. It is said that the workers who approach the factory gates for performing satyagraha are being arrested by the police. The challenge is mainly to the conduct of the police prohibiting the workmen from going anywhere near 200 yards of the gate.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Baliapatam. Reference is made to an order passed by this Court to afford police protection to the management as against the workers in O. P. 1222 of 1974. It is said that pursuant to that order the police removed the workers who were in the premises of the factory and after this there was no occasion for the police to interfere with the peaceful demonstration of the workers before the factory gate.

4. Petitions seeking orders from this Court to the police to give adequate police protection to managements of Industrial and Business concerns as against their workmen is one of common occurrence in this court. But it is rarely that workmen or their Unions come up to this Court seeking similar protection from the police against the management. Thus this Petition is unique.

5. It is strange that in O. P. 1222 of 1974 the petitioner did not seek to obtain orders with the workmen also as parties to the petition. Evidently therefore the workmen had no voice at the time such order was obtained. That order of course did not in any way enable the police to prevent satyagraha by the workmen in front of the factory gate.

6. Every citizen in this country is entitled to protection from authorities on whom the duty to maintain law and order is imposed so as to enable him to carry on his lawful avocation. Resort to this Court for securing police protection cannot be a matter of course. The power conferred on this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is an extra-ordinary power and is to be invoked only where circumstances are exceptional and do warrant the exercise of such power.

7. Strikes, lock-outs, satyagrahas and demonstrations are nothing new in our country. Promotion of social justice over the last few decides was, to a considerable extent, due to militant and agitational approach of the workmen and not, to any appreciable degree, due to condescension by the management. It is but true that in the process of securing to the workmen more amenities and privileges and better conditions of service the Industrial Tribunals, Labour Courts, and the Courts of this country have played a vital role. A negative approach to lawful agitation by the working class to secure higher wages and better living conditions cannot be justified by resort to the plea of ma